Held that since there is no evidence that the assessee has received any rental income from the house property which was vacant and the addition has been made on account of notional rent, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is not justified.Assessee having disclosed rental income from two properties, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable on account of the shortfall in disclosing the said income. Assessee having voluntarily disclosed a certain amount as buffer income to take care of omission, if any, and the AO having found no omission or error, the amount disclosed by the assessee as buffer income does not call for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c). Tribunal held that the High Court has admitted the appeal on the substantial question of law of residential status of the assessee against the order of the Settlement Commission treating the assessee as ‘resident’ and, therefore, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) levied by the AO for non-disclosure of salary earned from a foreign entity is not sustainable; even otherwise, the penalty levied by the AO on 26th Sept., 2018 is barred by limitation as per both the time-limits specified in cl. (c) of s. 275(1). (AY-2010-11)